Thursday, July 04, 2013

Challenges facing the next director of the USGS

Marcia McNutt, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey,
resigned effective March 1, 2013.As
President Obama and Interior Secretary Jewell consider her replacement, this
would be the time to consider what we want the USGS to do, how they should do
it, and to rethink roles of the agency.

One fundamental question is whether the USGS is principally
a science support agency for the U.S. Department of Interior, or a geoscience institution
that plays a leading role in identifying and implementing solutions to national
geoscience issues. I would argue the latter is the case.There are dozens of examples of why this is
increasingly necessary, but let me proffer just a few to make my case.

The USGS is the custodian of some of our most important
Earth science infrastructure including the national stream gaging program and
much of the nation’s seismic monitoring capability.However, we lost more than 1,500 stream
gages nationwide from the peak of 8,326 in 1968, even at a time when they are
more critical for dealing with water resources and flooding, especially at the
regional watershed level.Many of these
were restored to operation since 1998 in large part by shifting costs to state
and local agencies but many are on the block again due to the latest budget
cuts.

USGS seismic monitoring is concentrated on high risk states
and now, after the Virginia magnitude 5.8 earthquake of 2011 literally shook up
Congress, in states near the Capitol.Areas like Arizona and others where we have not had very recent large
damaging earthquakes get little or no USGS support for the minimal seismic
stations (7 in Arizona for example run by AZGS) that we bought used and hold
together with baling wire and spit.

What are the management and funding models for critical
national infrastructure like this – is it a federal responsibility, the state’s,
or some mixture?For something like the USGS-run
Landsat satellite program, there’s no question that it is a federal function. But
when we come down to Earth, the answer seems to vary by program and changing
budget situations.Of the growth in the
USGS budget, a good part of it has been due to an expanded mission (Biological
Research acquired in FY1995; Enterprise Information began in FY2005; and Global
Change in FY2008) and these new components represented 25% of the agency’s total
revenue in 2010.

One of our most critical shortcomings is the lack of an assessment
of natural hazards in the U.S., either nationally or in most states.We do not know for instance how many
landslides occur in a year, what areas are susceptible to landslides, how much
damage they cause, or how many people are injured or killed by them.Multiply that times all the other natural
hazards such as floods, debris flows, sinkholes, expansive soils, etc., and you
understand why a recent report from the National Research Council, entitled “Disaster
Resilience,” called for comprehensive data compilation and analyses around
which to plan a national agenda to better monitor, predict, respond to, and
mitigate these events.This screams for
a federal-state partnership with substantive USGS involvement, and likely
programmatic leadership.

Similarly, we have a dwindling national ability to assess
our mineral resources and our vulnerability to international supply disruptions
of them with consequences comparable to energy security issues.The nation – government, business, and
average citizens - has become sensitive in recent years to the total U.S.
dependence on foreign sources for rare earth elements that play critical roles
in the economy, including in many high-tech and green technologies, and
national security.A similar
recognition and urgency does not exist for other strategic and critical
minerals that we import, often from unstable or potentially unfriendly regimes.Yet at the same time, the USGS is cutting
back its already miniscule Mineral Resources program by as much as half.

The budget of the USGS has been effectively flat, except for
inflation, for at least the past 15 years while costs have gone up and
additional tasks given to the agency, squeezing the agency’s ability to carry out
many of its core functions.Yet, other science agencies, like the National
Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, have seen huge budget
increases with strong congressional and stakeholder support to do even
more.A key question is why USGS is
lagging in competing for its share of science funding in the federal budget.

The USGS Coalition (http://www.usgscoalition.org/), composed
of supporters of the USGS, has argued for years for “increased federal
investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource
stewardship, improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and
contribute to the long-term health, security, and prosperity of the
nation.”But these efforts, while
laudable, have not been sufficient.

In 2008, a group including former USGS directors and
Presidential Science Advisors, called on merging USGS and NOAA (National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), to form an Earth Systems Science
Agency, to better address “unprecedented environmental and economic challenges
in the decades ahead. Foremost among them will be climate change, sea-level
rise, altered weather patterns, declines in freshwater availability and
quality, and loss of biodiversity” (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5885/44.full?sid=1adb8d7d-076f-443f-a155-ef96df668b97). The proposed ESSA would need to
coordinate its efforts with other agencies with significant Earth science
missions, including NSF, NASA, Energy, EPA, and others.

One of the pragmatic recommendations the group made was that
“No less than 25% of ESSA's budget should be devoted to grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements with academic and nonprofit institutions.”That level of engagement with the broader
scientific community has successfully mobilized community and political support
for other federal agencies and would presumably do the same for an ESSA if it
was ever formed or, I would argue, for the USGS as it exists today if it
embraced a similar approach.The USGS
does not provide external funding opportunities anywhere near the level of many
other science-based federal agencies, because as many USGS officials have told
me, “we don’t have enough money to carry out our core functions now. We can’t
give away any more money.”

Would it be worth some significant but hopefully short term pain
if a restructuring of the agency’s relationships in the broader science arena could
translate into long term benefit for the agency with an expanded clientele
willing to push Congress and the President for more and larger cooperative programs,
ultimately aligning the USGS budget more realistically with its
responsibilities?

The idea for a merged agency never went any further but the
issues remain. Coordinating a more formal, comprehensive national Earth science
agenda in collaboration with NASA, NOAA, NSF, DOE and others is still in the
nation’s best interests and it might help raise the profile of the critical
work carried out by USGS.This doesn’t
need to be done through a merger as suggested in 2008, but by the USGS asserting
a greater and more forceful role as a national, and indeed global leader, in
identifying and setting priorities for addressing the most critical Earth
science issues facing society today.

Another aspect to the USGS role at the national level is its
interactions with States in a federal system.Having been in the unique position of serving as State Geologist in
three states over the last two decades, I’ve struggled repeatedly over state
and federal roles in the Earth sciences.State Geological Surveys collectively comprise 2,200 employees
nationwide with combined budgets of about $240 million, or about one-fourth the
size and budget of the USGS.The three
biggest state surveys, Illinois, Texas, and California, account for more than
one-third of all state survey revenues. Most State Surveys are relatively small,
with limited scientific and technical expertise outside of core areas.

Too often, though, we have found offices of the USGS
competing with us for limited state and local funds in our states, or working
on local projects that would be hard pressed to be defended as national
priorities.This “competition” has and can
continue to serve as stumbling blocks in building broader support for USGS
programs among the agency’s natural constituencies.

An analogy I like to use is the difference between the local
sheriff and the FBI.The FBI does not
issue traffic tickets or respond to fender benders. But when local law
enforcement needs some highly specialized capability or national resource, or
an issue crosses state lines, the FBI can bring to bear services that are not
available at the local level.Could we
clarify roles and responsibilities between State Geological Surveys (and other
state agencies I suspect) and the USGS?Can the USGS maintain the cadre of national experts that states can turn
to for assistance that doesn’t make sense to maintain in every locality?The Canadian national and provincial
geological surveys hammered out such an agreement many years ago and it seemed
to resolve some of these conflicts.

So, the challenges facing the next director of the USGS are
daunting, at many levels.These are only
a few of them, and ones that I have particular familiarity with.I would argue however,
that there are changes that can be made in what the agency does, and how it
does them that can redefine the role of the USGS so that the community, broader
society, and decision–makers are more likely to step up to ensure the USGS has
the support and resources to be able to carry out the critical missions we have
for it.These would not be easy
decisions to make or implement.I wish
the next director our best wishes and offer our support.

Very insightful and comprehensive review of challenges facing the USGS. Your point about the lack of a significant external grant progrsa and its effect on the size and enthusiasm of the USGS constituency has been debated in budget discussions with OMB. The problem has been what or who to cut to come up with funds necessary for a grant program since it has never been an option to simply add funds for this purpose. Another continuing issue facing the USGS budget has been that the Department of the Interior budget has not been a federal priority in recent decades and within Interior, the USGS doesn't usually compete well given the land and resource management mission of DOI.

Your analysis should be very useful to those being considered for the USGS director position. It may serve to narrow the field by scaring some away!

Thanks Chip. The issue of how to start up a significant external grants program without further gutting existing programs is a major stumbling block. I danced around it a bit, referring to short term pain, but in reality it cannot be so blithely dismissed.

[Chip did not mention it, but he served as Director of the USGS from 1998 to 2005]

Lee, you have made thoughtful, constructive, and compelling points on a topic of pressing importance. At stake is our ability to manage and protect our water, to plan for adequate availability of energy and materials, to ensure efficiency of land use planning and construction, and to optimize our resiliency in relation to hazards.